Antarctic Ice 2007 and now

[brenthutch 444]

2007: A thaw of Antarctic ice is outpacing predictions by the U.N. climate panel and could in the worst case drive up world sea levels by 2 meters (6 ft) by 2100, a leading expert said on Wednesday

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/22/environment-climate-antarctica-dc-idUSL2210716920070822?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

2012:Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

What a difference five years make.

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

2007: A thaw of Antarctic ice is outpacing predictions by the U.N. climate panel and could in the worst case drive up world sea levels by 2 meters (6 ft) by 2100, a leading expert said on Wednesday

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/22/environment-climate-antarctica-dc-idUSL2210716920070822?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

2012:Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

What a difference five years make.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[billvon 3,120]

From the Christian Science Monitor:

===============
"Antarctic sea ice hasn't seen these big reductions we've seen in the Arctic. This is not a surprise to us," said climate scientist Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC. "Some of the skeptics say 'Well, everything is OK because the big changes in the Arctic are essentially balanced by what's happening in the Antarctic.' This is simply not true." [Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround']

Projections made from climate models all predict that global warming should impact Arctic sea ice first and most intensely, Serreze said. "We have known for many years that as the Earth started to warm up, the effects would be seen first in the Arctic and not the Antarctic. The physical geography of the two hemispheres is very different. Largely as a result of that, they behave very differently."

The Arctic, an ocean surrounded by land, responds much more directly to changes in air and sea-surface temperatures than Antarctica, Serreze explained. The climate of Antarctica, land surrounded by ocean, is governed much more by wind and ocean currents. Some studies indicate climate change has strengthened westerly winds in the Southern Hemisphere, and because wind has a cooling effect, scientists say this partly accounts for the marginal increase in sea ice levels that have been observed in the Antarctic in recent decades.

"Another reason why the sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is remaining fairly high is, interestingly, the ozone hole," Serreze told Life's Little Mysteries. This hole was carved out over time by chlorofluorocarbons, toxic chemicals formerly that were used in air conditioners and solvents before being banned. "The ozone hole affects the circulation of the atmosphere down there. Because of the ozone hole, the stratosphere above Antarctica is quite cold. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV light, and less absorption [by] ozone makes the stratosphere really cold. This cold air propagates down to the surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic, and that keeps the sea ice extensive."

But these effects are very small, and Antarctic sea-ice levels have increased only marginally. In the coming decades, climate models suggest rising global temperatures will overwhelm the other influences and cause Antarctic sea ice to scale back, too.

The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped 40 percent in the past three decades. The idea that a tiny Antarctic ice expansion makes up for this — that heat is merely shifting from the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global warming must not be happening — is "just nonsense," Serreze said.
======================================

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

From the Christian Science Monitor:

===============
"Antarctic sea ice hasn't seen these big reductions we've seen in the Arctic. This is not a surprise to us," said climate scientist Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC. "Some of the skeptics say 'Well, everything is OK because the big changes in the Arctic are essentially balanced by what's happening in the Antarctic.' This is simply not true." [Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround']

Projections made from climate models all predict that global warming should impact Arctic sea ice first and most intensely, Serreze said. "We have known for many years that as the Earth started to warm up, the effects would be seen first in the Arctic and not the Antarctic. The physical geography of the two hemispheres is very different. Largely as a result of that, they behave very differently."

The Arctic, an ocean surrounded by land, responds much more directly to changes in air and sea-surface temperatures than Antarctica, Serreze explained. The climate of Antarctica, land surrounded by ocean, is governed much more by wind and ocean currents. Some studies indicate climate change has strengthened westerly winds in the Southern Hemisphere, and because wind has a cooling effect, scientists say this partly accounts for the marginal increase in sea ice levels that have been observed in the Antarctic in recent decades.

"Another reason why the sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is remaining fairly high is, interestingly, the ozone hole," Serreze told Life's Little Mysteries. This hole was carved out over time by chlorofluorocarbons, toxic chemicals formerly that were used in air conditioners and solvents before being banned. "The ozone hole affects the circulation of the atmosphere down there. Because of the ozone hole, the stratosphere above Antarctica is quite cold. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV light, and less absorption [by] ozone makes the stratosphere really cold. This cold air propagates down to the surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic, and that keeps the sea ice extensive."

But these effects are very small, and Antarctic sea-ice levels have increased only marginally. In the coming decades, climate models suggest rising global temperatures will overwhelm the other influences and cause Antarctic sea ice to scale back, too.

The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped 40 percent in the past three decades. The idea that a tiny Antarctic ice expansion makes up for this — that heat is merely shifting from the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global warming must not be happening — is "just nonsense," Serreze said.
======================================

More quasi science based on models..... global freeze everyone! No global warming!

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

2007: A thaw of Antarctic ice is outpacing predictions by the U.N. climate panel and could in the worst case drive up world sea levels by 2 meters (6 ft) by 2100, a leading expert said on Wednesday

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/22/environment-climate-antarctica-dc-idUSL2210716920070822?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

2012:Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

What a difference five years make.

What a difference it makes to know the difference between Antarctic ice and Antarctic SEA ice, and not conflate the two.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Bill - you know enough about this science to poke these very same holes in what this guy is saying.

Quote

"Antarctic sea ice hasn't seen these big reductions we've seen in the Arctic. This is not a surprise to us," said climate scientist Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC.

Okay. Show us where an increase in Antarctic Sea Ice is predicted. Come to think of it, show us where on your NSIDC web site you provide the Antarctic Sea Ice Data.

Quote

"Some of the skeptics say 'Well, everything is OK because the big changes in the Arctic are essentially balanced by what's happening in the Antarctic.' This is simply not true." [Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround']

Then there are some like me who say, “This is contrary to the AGW model. The observations do not match the predictions. That tends to cast doubt on future predictions.”

Quote

Projections made from climate models all predict that global warming should impact Arctic sea ice first and most intensely, Serreze said. "We have known for many years that as the Earth started to warm up, the effects would be seen first in the Arctic and not the Antarctic. The physical geography of the two hemispheres is very different. Largely as a result of that, they behave very differently."

Actually, it was also predicted that global warming would be seen most intensely over large cold land masses like Siberia and Antarctica.

I also note that while the physical geography is different, the physics of sea ice creation remain the same in Antarctica and the Arctic.

Quote

The Arctic, an ocean surrounded by land, responds much more directly to changes in air and sea-surface temperatures than Antarctica, Serreze explained. The climate of Antarctica, land surrounded by ocean, is governed much more by wind and ocean currents.

Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait…

Is this guy saying that winds have a greater effect on sea ice in the Antarctic than in the Arctic? If so, the guy is full of shit. Arctic ice actually gets blown out of the arctic to warmer seas (which is why ice older than 3 years is so rare).

Quote

Some studies indicate climate change has strengthened westerly winds in the Southern Hemisphere, and because wind has a cooling effect, scientists say this partly accounts for the marginal increase in sea ice levels that have been observed in the Antarctic in recent decades.

Again – this effect was not predicted. This means that some elementary physics and relationships are missing from the climate prediction models. And also note that the explanation is qualified.

Quote

"Another reason why the sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is remaining fairly high is, interestingly, the ozone hole," Serreze told Life's Little Mysteries…"The ozone hole affects the circulation of the atmosphere down there. Because of the ozone hole, the stratosphere above Antarctica is quite cold. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV light, and less absorption [by] ozone makes the stratosphere really cold. This cold air propagates down to the surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic, and that keeps the sea ice extensive."

Again, this was not predicted.

And secondly, it portends another dominant anthropogenic forcing.

Quote

But these effects are very small, and Antarctic sea-ice levels have increased only marginally.

No increase at all was predicted. That’s the problem. Go back to the drawing board and spit out some new predictions based upon the updated understand of the relationships.

Quote

In the coming decades, climate models suggest rising global temperatures will overwhelm the other influences and cause Antarctic sea ice to scale back, too.

These same climate models that are being invalidated left and right because of relationships that weren’t considered before? Does anybody see my problem with this? Let’s forget past performance. Those were simple minor relationships that we hadn’t counted on. In performing these calculations, the errors daisy chain and compound through the future. If future predictions are predicated on what’s happening now, and what’s happening how ain’t what was predicted, how can the future predictions be considered trustworthy?

It isn’t science until empirical observations validate the GCM. The ice loss in the Arctic is vastly in excess of what was predicted. That means something is wrong with the prediction. The ice gain in the Antarctic wasn’t predicted at all. That means something is wrong with the prediction.

Quote

The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped 40 percent in the past three decades. The idea that a tiny Antarctic ice expansion makes up for this — that heat is merely shifting from the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global warming must not be happening — is "just nonsense," Serreze said.

I’m not minimizing the Arctic ice loss. It would be wise and add to credibility to acknowledge that the Antarctic ice increase is no more or less relevant than the Arctic ice decrease regarding our understandings.

p.s. brenthutch – it is a useful thing to the discussion to not equate Arctic or Antarctic sea ice with Antarctic land ice. The two are formed by very different processes. Land ice is formed by accumulated precipitation, which AGW theory predicts will increase with warmer temperatures. Antarctica is a desert and gets very little precipitation because the place is so cold, water vapor is precipitated out of the atmosphere before it can snow. If the Antarctic average temperature increases from -55 to -30, Antarctica will no longer be as desertified, and sea levels will drop as more water is stored as ice in its shelves). Ice loss can be expected even in very cold temperatures due to sublimation processes. Getting colder can actually decrease ice mass and extent over land.

Sea ice is formed by cold air interacting with sea water, forming freshwater ice crystals and rejecting the brine. Sea ice formation in cold weather is increased by wind and rough seas, which break up the ice cover and expose new water to be frozen. The polynyas that help ice form when colder also aid in ice depletion in warmer periods. A passing storm breaks up and spreads ice in winter, meaning more gets created in its wake. That same storm in August will decimate ice extent and mass.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

2007: A thaw of Antarctic ice is outpacing predictions by the U.N. climate panel and could in the worst case drive up world sea levels by 2 meters (6 ft) by 2100, a leading expert said on Wednesday

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/22/environment-climate-antarctica-dc-idUSL2210716920070822?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

2012:Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

What a difference five years make.

What a difference it makes to know the difference between Antarctic ice and Antarctic SEA ice, and not conflate the two.

Physician, heal thyself. Are you equating the amount and nature of the ice in the arctic with that of the Antarctic?

[brenthutch 444]

Oh, and to give you a little help, from the alarmist website http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com

"The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world’s ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 metres (7,000 feet) thick, and in many places thickness exceeds 4,000 metres (13,123 feet), reaching a maximum of 4,800 metres(15,748 feet). The British Antarctic Survey estimates the volume of the ice sheet to be 30 million cubic kilometres"

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

2007: A thaw of Antarctic ice is outpacing predictions by the U.N. climate panel and could in the worst case drive up world sea levels by 2 meters (6 ft) by 2100, a leading expert said on Wednesday

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/22/environment-climate-antarctica-dc-idUSL2210716920070822?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

2012:Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

What a difference five years make.

What a difference it makes to know the difference between Antarctic ice and Antarctic SEA ice, and not conflate the two.

Physician, heal thyself. Are you equating the amount and nature of the ice in the arctic with that of the Antarctic?

Reading is a valuable skill. You should try it sometime.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Are you equating the amount and nature of the ice in the arctic with that of the Antarctic

I explained it above. Kallend is right on this one...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

You are sounding like Amazon now. Please tell me that you have more intellectual gravitas than a crazy cat lady....Please! I take great pleasure in kicking your intellectual butt. It would do me the most displeasure to find out that I am kicking down to the extent that it appears that I am.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

You are sounding like Amazon now. Please tell me that you have more intellectual gravitas than a crazy cat lady....Please! I take great pleasure in kicking your intellectual butt. It would do me the most displeasure to find out that I am kicking down to the extent that it appears that I am.

Reading is a valuable skill. You should try it sometime.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

"Another reason why the sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is remaining fairly high is, interestingly, the ozone hole," Serreze told Life's Little Mysteries. This hole was carved out over time by chlorofluorocarbons, toxic chemicals formerly that were used in air conditioners and solvents before being banned. "The ozone hole affects the circulation of the atmosphere down there. Because of the ozone hole, the stratosphere above Antarctica is quite cold. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV light, and less absorption [by] ozone makes the stratosphere really cold. This cold air propagates down to the surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic, and that keeps the sea ice extensive."

Well, it turns out the ozone hole was the second smallest in 20 years. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121024_antarcticozonehole.html

So

Quote

“It happened to be a bit warmer this year high in the atmosphere above Antarctica, and that meant we didn’t see quite as much ozone depletion as we saw last year, when it was colder,” said Jim Butler with NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

Ooops. A cause offered for the massive Antarctic sea ice extent has proven to be blown out by data. This was actually a WARMER year.

My conclusion: our understanding of climate forcings is in its infancy. Conclusion 2 - an attempt for a post hoc reason for the Antarctic ice extent has just added to a bigger problem with credibility. We can conclude that ozone hole and sea ice extent aren't as related as they thought starting a few weeks ago.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

"Another reason why the sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is remaining fairly high is, interestingly, the ozone hole," Serreze told Life's Little Mysteries. This hole was carved out over time by chlorofluorocarbons, toxic chemicals formerly that were used in air conditioners and solvents before being banned. "The ozone hole affects the circulation of the atmosphere down there. Because of the ozone hole, the stratosphere above Antarctica is quite cold. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV light, and less absorption [by] ozone makes the stratosphere really cold. This cold air propagates down to the surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic, and that keeps the sea ice extensive."

Well, it turns out the ozone hole was the second smallest in 20 years. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121024_antarcticozonehole.html

So

Quote

“It happened to be a bit warmer this year high in the atmosphere above Antarctica, and that meant we didn’t see quite as much ozone depletion as we saw last year, when it was colder,” said Jim Butler with NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

Ooops. A cause offered for the massive Antarctic sea ice extent has proven to be blown out by data. This was actually a WARMER year.

.

What part of the phrase "HIGH in the atmosphere" is it that you don't understand?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Seeing as how the stratiosphere is where the ozone level is (and I myself, as well as others, consider the area from 30k feet to 150k feet to be "high"), and since both discuss the same damned ozone layer,

what part of "ozone layer" don't you understand? You're being argumentative for the sake of argument.

Learn the physics of ozone creation and the effects of heat and cold and then see the silliness of your comment.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Seeing as how the stratiosphere is where the ozone level is (and I myself, as well as others, consider the area from 30k feet to 150k feet to be "high"), and since both discuss the same damned ozone layer,

what part of "ozone layer" don't you understand? You're being argumentative for the sake of argument.

Learn the physics of ozone creation and the effects of heat and cold and then see the silliness of your comment.

Where did it say that WARMER air propagates downwards?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

It didn’t. The initial explanation was that the ozone hole allowed for colder air to propagate downward, which resulted in greater ice. The point – but for an ozone hole, we’d have shrinking ice. The bigger the ozone hole, the more sea ice we’ll have. But this year we had a lot of ice and a not-so-big ozone hole.

The point? The relationship between the ozone hole and the sea ice level is being called into question.

But as you know, John, cold air propagating downward can become warm air. I grew up in the Los Angeles area and I’m familiar with the effects of katabatic compression – often right about this time every year. (I’m no scientist).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

It didn’t. The initial explanation was that the ozone hole allowed for colder air to propagate downward, which resulted in greater ice. The point – but for an ozone hole, we’d have shrinking ice. The bigger the ozone hole, the more sea ice we’ll have. But this year we had a lot of ice and a not-so-big ozone hole.

The point? The relationship between the ozone hole and the sea ice level is being called into question.

But as you know, John, cold air propagating downward can become warm air. I grew up in the Los Angeles area and I’m familiar with the effects of katabatic compression – often right about this time every year. (I’m no scientist).

But why do you think warm air aloft would propagate downwards? Since you live in LA you are also familiar with inversions and how stable they are.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I'm saying that cool air propogates down a slope, gets compressed and becomes warm. it's not warm air that propogates down (though it can happen - see rotors). It's dense cool arid air that gets compressed and warms up. Sort of the PV=nRT thing.

Being in Fresno, I am also familiar with an inversion layer. I also am familiar with convection. All the little oddities and different relationships that occur.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I'm saying that cool air propogates down a slope, gets compressed and becomes warm. it's not warm air that propogates down (though it can happen - see rotors). It's dense cool arid air that gets compressed and warms up. Sort of the PV=nRT thing.

Being in Fresno, I am also familiar with an inversion layer. I also am familiar with convection. All the little oddities and different relationships that occur.

Right, so if the lapse rate exceeds the DALR then the atmosphere is unstable, and if it's less than the DALR then it's stable. Hence abnormally cold air aloft is expected to propagate down, while abnormally warm air aloft won't. The adiabatic heating or cooling is only relevant to the extent that the temperature of the ascending or descending parcel of air is different from its surroundings.

IOW, your conclusion was not warranted/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

So then you are saying that the ozone hole has nothing to do with Antarctic sea ice development.

Got it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

So then you are saying that the ozone hole has nothing to do with Antarctic sea ice development.

Got it.

No, I'm saying that your conclusion cannot necessarily be justified without more information. Abnormal cold aloft does not have the same effect on the atmosphere as abnormal warm aloft. Abnormally warm air aloft will NOT cause the lower atmosphere to warm. Abnormally cold air aloft WILL cause the lower atmosphere to cool.

You jumped the gun.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I will agree with that statement.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

www.futurity.org/earth-environment/at-both-poles-ice-melt-is-speeding-up/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Yep. Here we go again. Ice melt is speeding up in Antarctica. We know this because it’s warmer there. Except for when the sea ice extent is at its record ever measured. But that’s because it’s colder there because of the hole in the ozone layer, which is adding ice. And the chilling means that it is warming and ice is being lost.
Just to make sure I’ve got my Antarctica stories straight.
Also, I was heartened to see that the new study went along with what I’ve been predicting all along regarding Greenland. That areas of the coasts will see ice ablation But the vast majority of the Greenland ice sheet will either show little net change or a gain in the accretion of ice, which will, as a whole, leave it is stasis. (every time a glacier calves it is considered loss of ice mass. So you see the location Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier losing mass because it calves).

Of course, this is all entirely consistent with AGW theory. Ice ablation at lower altitudes (where it is warmer, anyway) but ice accretion at higher places due to increased snow and ice precipitation due to the warming.

I’m glad there are scientists out there gathering evidence to support my predictions. You can find them on here.

Edited to add: note the distinct absence of post hoc attribution that I am providing. It's goign along with my thought that global warming is real, humans have some involvement, but it is mild, within the margin of natural, and not at all disastrous or catastrophic.

My wife is hotter than your wife.